Credibility and the Nobel Prize
So John Kerry has the backing of a big group of Nobel Laureates who think that our failure to recognize the dangers of global warming will result in the End of Life As We Know It. And that's the "scholarly consensus."
Arguments from authority are the weakest arguments out there, but the Nobel Prize at least tells who we might want to listen to. In this case, none of the Nobel Laureates in question works in climate science, so brandishing the Nobel Prize might be misleading. Tech Central Station reports.
Comments (1)
But then establishing credibility to an argument has always been a serious issue.
Very often information presented is so Asymetric it's almost laughable. Most people have no idea what the equations for global warming involve, let alone what it takes to win a Nobel Lauret. The motive here is clear. They want one to say Nobel=Smart, therefore this is a good argument. And with little or no alternative information to go on, most the public will go along with the argument.
Proving or disproving the credibility of the argument costs too much in terms of time spent for the average person. Easier to accept and continue on ones way.
I guess that's why so many people simply belive blogs with a serious lack of sources available. Of course, I did background checks on all your sources and statements...
Published: April 6, 2006 3:19 PM